Chances are, if you took a poll, most Catholics in the pews here on Sunday couldn't tell you who the Bishop for the Diocese of Cheyenne is.
And that is as it should be.
By and large, if things are going relatively well, there's no real reason for you to know who the Bishop is. An observant Catholic no doubt knows who the parish priest(s) is/are, who the deacon is, if there is one, and probably knows who the priests are in the across town parishes. And they may have kept track of a favorite priest once he was reassigned. But the Bishop? Well, for the most part, they don't really interact with him.
Now, having said that, there's always observant who do know who the Bishop is, and of course he's prayed for, along with the Pope, every Mass. So, yes, I know who the Bishop is, and I've known who the Bishops were going back into my teenage years.
Having an opinion on how well a Bishop is doing is another matter.
The first time that I can recall a Bishop was from when I was a kid. We were going fishing and as my father, in our 1965 Chevrolet pickup, entered The Narrows, a car was beside the road and a couple of men standing by it. "That's the Bishop", my father stated, and we pulled off. Their car had broken down. The Bishop and a priest got in, and we took them back to town, which mean we had four adults and one child in the cab of a pickup.
At that time, that wasn't abnormal.
"How's the fishing?" is what I recalled him saying.
That would have been Bishop Newell, who stepped down in 1978, and who passed away in 1987. He was a Coloradan. He would have been nearly the same age as my father's father and mother. He'd been the Bishop since 1951, although in later hears there was a co-Bishop (not the right word). He was well liked.
He was the Bishop at my Confirmation, and actually picked my Confirmation Name, as in the mushy days of the 1970s, I'd somehow failed to pick one and nobody had required me to. He picked "John".
The next Bishop was Bishop Hart.
We didn't react much to Bishop Hart, although I can recall that my father was not a fan of the Bishop's Appeal, which we still have. He didn't approve of some of the things it was used for, and probably still wouldn't.
Bishop Hart was later accused of improper conduct with a few boys in his prior diocese and at least one here. He was thoroughly investigated by the police and DA's office twice, and both times they chose not to prosecute, feeling the accusations unwarranted. Under the current, and maybe prior, Bishop there was an ecclesiastical followup on this, with the same going all the way to the Vatican, with the Vatican also feeling there wasn't enough there to sanction him. Nonetheless, the current Bishop has been of the view, basically, that he was guilty and taken that position officially. He really focused on it for a long time.
That's been one of the reasons that I've been somewhat critical of the current Bishop.
Americans claim to believe that you are innocent until proven guilty, but we don't. We should at least pretend that we do officially, however, if the process is to mean anything. And to have had two DA's and a Vatican process all say that there wasn't enough there should mean that we at least cease to have a focus on an accusation.
This is moreover all the more the case in a diocese in which the population is highly transient, and most Catholics here weren't here when Bishop Hart was the bishop. Indeed, the current bishop has had a quiet focus on Hispanic immigrants, which also were, ironically, a focus of Bishop Hart, and most of the Hispanics in Wyoming, if they were even alive when he was Bishop, were probably living in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chihuahua.
And no, I'm not joking in that observation.
We've had a series of Bishops in recent years, and at least in my observation, there's some quiet discontent on this one in general, at least in some quarters.
Bishop David Ricken, who was originally from Dodge City, Kansas, was really popular, and a genuinely nice guy. He was later made the Bishop of Green Bay. After him, we had Bishop Etienne, who was quite popular in no small part because he was a farmer and a hunter, and seemed like one of us. That may be why Pope Benedict picked him. He later went on to be assigned to the Archdiocese of Anchorage, and is now in the Archdiocese of Seattle.
Bishop Biegler is from South Dakota and should be regarded as one of us, but it's been my observation that he's never been popular with a selection of Catholics here. The more conservative a Catholic is, the least likely he is to be a fan of Bishop Biegler. That may simply be because he was appointed by Pope Francis, whom conservative Catholics here aren't huge fans of, which is true of a selection of conservative Catholics across the U.S. As noted, he's really focused on the Priest Abuse scandals, and oddly enough that may be part of the reason he's not been hugely popular. We're a minority religion here and Wyoming did not have a huge problem. There were some priests implicated, but it was quite limited in general. Focusing on it tends to put Catholics in disdain by non-Catholics, a problem in a population where you are already regarded as odd for being Catholic. Indeed, just the other day a Baptist minister made a joke at my expense for being a Catholic, apparently unaware that protestant denominations have had just as big, if not bigger, problem, but that it largely goes unnoticed as the press really doesn't follow Protestantism very much.
Teachers, as we've noted, have the largest rate of icky transgressions.
Anyhow, the whisperers tend to suggest that Bishop Biegler is one of Francis' bishops, by which they mean that they believe that Francis is a liberal who is pushing the Church into accommodation with homosexuality. That likely misjudges Francis. What it doesn't misjudge is that the US has had a selection of disappointing Bishops, while it also had a selection of outstanding one. A lot of the noteworthy, outstanding ones are very conservative and orthodox. Pope Francis has, at the same time, criticized the American Church for being in essence conservative and not on board with a lot of what he's trying to do, although it's quite difficult to tell what Pope Francis is trying to do.
He's trying to do something with Fiducia Supplicans.
Fiducia Supplicans was hugely upsetting to a lot of orthodox and conservative Catholics.
I've discussed it elsewhere, but one of the things that I noted is that I sort of think I see the failure to recognize a trend at work here. The Western World, following World War Two, used its fast wealth to expand its wealth to the point where most of the problems that predated 1945 didn't really impact us the way they used to. We've always wondered what we'd do if had a lot of time and money on our hands, and it turns out that we think only of ourselves, and then we begin to think a lot about our genitals. It probably makes sense on an evolutionary biological level, but it's resulted in a lot of disorder and falsity.
And because it's been misunderstood, throughout the West, people have convinced themselves that the whole world is discovering that "homosexuality" and "transgenderism" have been deeply hidden wide spared human traits when, in fact, there's no good evidence f that at all, and the former characterization is actually scientifically suspect, and the latter one doesn't even exist. The Church in the West, urged on by those who believe that if only this was understood, or in some liberal quarters accommodated, has a significant element working on this topic in the belief that only if some accommodation could be reached, all those with these sexual attributes would come back to Mass.
In the wider world, however, the West is declining and the Church in other regions rising. People in Africa and Asia look at this and think the West has gone nuts, and in fact most people in most regions of the globe do not view this as conduct that's normal, but the opposite. And scientifically, they're likely right. So the global trend is Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is towards orthodoxy. Indeed, the young everywhere are turning towards conservatism and orthodoxy. It's hard for leadership of major institutions to realize this, however, as they're focused on the West, where while this has probably jumped the shark it's not obvious, and they remain lead by the Baby Boom generation which is focused on the trends of its own era.
Fiducia Supplicans caused quite a reaction based on a person's position and region. The Church in Africa pretty much said it wasn't going there, blessing wise. Pope Francis made a later statement which upset some people by excepting the African attitude as cultural, which again is something I feel that wasn't accurately assessed. Fiducia Supplicans, changes no doctrine at all, of course, but its the focus on it that caused ire in conservative quarters, as it seems to be focused on homosexuality, and it was misunderstood at first as to its application.
In the US a few Bishops in written statements, and some individual priests publically, have taken the Pope's direction to reflect on how to apply it locally and determined not to apply it. The Vatican in January indicated that Bishops should not stop priests from applying it. In Wyoming, not much was said of any official nature at all.
Now Bishop Biegler has, in the Wyoming Catholic Register. While it is a copyrighted article, as we're commenting on it, we're going to set the entire article out below.
Questions have arisen about the blessing that may be given to couples in same-sex unions or in heterosexual unions lived outside of a Church marriage, as stated in Fiducia Supplicans (FS). So, I would like to address the major concerns. First, Pope Francis did not change the doctrine of marriage. He stated clearly, “Since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice” (11, FS).
A Gesture of Pastoral Closeness
Thus, a liturgical blessing is not to be given, but a pastoral blessing may be given. As explained by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), “non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person nor of the couple who receives them, they are not a justification of all their actions, and they are not an endorsement of the life that they lead.” Instead a pastoral blessing is a “simple gesture of pastoral closeness.” It expresses the all-encompassing love of God for his children in every circumstance of their lives.
Knowing that they cannot receive Communion, people come forward in the procession seeking a blessing. They want to feel God’s closeness. The priest or deacon asks no questions about the person’s moral life, but simply offers a prayer or blessing. After Mass, often people ask for a blessing over their family, which is given without any inquiry about their marital status. These pastoral blessings express God’s closeness. Pope Francis said, “When a couple spontaneously comes and asks [a priest] for this [blessing], it is not the union that is blessed but simply the persons who together have asked for the blessing.” He explained that “the intention of the pastoral and spontaneous blessings is to show concretely the closeness of the Lord and of the church to all those who, finding themselves in different situations, ask help to continue—sometimes to begin—a journey of faith.”
Some Catholics have expressed concern that people could misinterpret the meaning of a pastoral blessing given to couples who are in a union not officially recognized by the Church. Thus, it is essential to differentiate between a liturgical blessing and a pastoral blessing. The DDF stated, “The real novelty of this Declaration … is not the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations. It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: ‘liturgical or ritualized’ and ‘spontaneous or pastoral.’”
Confidence in Christ’s Blessing
Yet, there is another significant teaching in Fiducia Supplicans that merits our attention. How strongly it expresses God’s merciful love! This is one reason why many are distraught by FS. Since the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis’ proclamation of mercy has been embraced by the multitude but rejected by a vociferous minority. FS, once again, firmly proclaims that God’s mercy must be extended to every single person.
The opposition of FS focuses overwhelmingly on blessing those in same-sex relationships rather than those many more men and women who are in heterosexual relationships not deemed valid
by the Church. There is a unique prejudice against people in same-sex unions. They are seen with contempt, like the way Jews looked upon tax collectors.
As a tax collector, Saint Matthew proclaims mercy poignantly. He portrays Christ challenging us to imitate the Father’s mercy. One of my favorite passages is, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:44-45). Do we really believe that our heavenly Father bestows mercy on the just and unjust? Are we seeking to be children of our heavenly Father by extending his love to everyone, the bad and the good alike?
Fiducia Supplicans begins with a quote from Pope Francis who reminds us: “The great blessing of God is Jesus Christ … He is a blessing for all humanity, a blessing that has saved us all. He is the Eternal Word, with whom the Father blessed us ‘while we were still sinners’ (Romans 5:8), as Saint Paul says. He is the Word made flesh, offered for us on the cross.” Are we confident in the blessing that Christ freely offered to sinners? As Saint ThĆ©rĆØse of the Child Jesus teaches us, this confidence “is the sole path that leads us to the Love that grants everything.
With confidence, the wellspring of grace overflows into our lives … It is most fitting, then, that we should place heartfelt trust not in ourselves but in the infinite mercy of a God who loves us unconditionally … The sin of the world is great but not infinite, whereas the merciful love of the Redeemer is indeed infinite” (22, FS).
Surprised by Mercy
Micah Kiel wrote: “Mercy is the surprise that people don’t want because it means they have no way of predicting what God will do and to whom God will do it” (America, John Martens, Jan. 5, 2024). For some, this is unnerving, and they react with fear. They see Pope Francis as causing confusion in the Church. Yet, he is actually calling us to internalize Christ’s mercy and boldly proclaim it to the world.
Some protest saying that we need both mercy and truth. Fiducia begins by affirming the truth of Church teaching on marriage, and it proclaims the truth of God’s unconditional blessing for all. Francis challenges us with the truth of mercy. In Amoris Laetitia, he reminded us of the primacy of mercy as we proclaim the truth of the Gospel.
He wrote, “… although it is quite true that concern must be shown for the integrity of the Church’s moral teaching, special care should always be shown to emphasize and encourage the highest and most central values of the Gospel, particularly the primacy of charity as a response to the completely gratuitous offer of God’s love. At times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity. We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning …
That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel … mercy is the fullness of justice and the most radiant manifestation of God’s truth. For this reason, we should always consider ‘inadequate any theological conception which in the end puts in doubt the omnipotence of God and, especially, his mercy’” (Amoris Laetitia, 311).
As we ponder God’s indiscriminate mercy, I will end with a challenge by James Alison, who wrote, “learn to perceive people you might have despised as ‘blessable’ rather than ‘contemptible,’ and then let God’s subtle grace sort out the efficacy of blessing in their – our – lives” (The Tablet, Jan. 4, 2024).
Now Wyoming's Catholics have the Bishop's official view.
Nothing that he has said is theologically shocking in any fashion. I'ts all correct. So people ought to lay off, right?
Well, I doubt they will, if for no other reason than that he didn't 1) say he didn't like it, and 2) seems to support it.
Well, he clearly supports it.
That reason is what will make him unpopular right there.
As noted, this article is in fact very orthodox. And Bishop Biegler deserves credit for being the first person I've seen to clearly explain the difference between the two categories of blessing the document addresses. I really hadn't followed that before.
Still, a couple of things.
One thing is a stylistic matter. Bishop Biegler, like the Pope, likes to use "!".
The exclamation mark ought to be eschewed in any serious writing. It just doesn't work, and it tends to cause most educated readers to be a bit disdainful of whatever was just accented through its use.
The other is, however, that Bishop Biegler is being mildly disdainful of those who are concerned about Fiducia Supplicans, suggesting that they don't appreciate the inclusiveness of Christianity or that they are dismissive of God's mercy. And indeed, some of the critics can rightfully be criticized for that.
But some cannot. Some are concerned that the blessings will in fact be focused exclusively on homosexual couples, and they are at least corrected to that extent, and that this will give the illusion that it approved of, and lead to more.
In fact, the argument, noted here, that the text doesn't really address homosexuality specifically and would also apply to other people with irregular sexual unions, while noted elsewhere, sort of begs a set of questions.
A major part of those conventional sexual unions is that they are conventionally oriented and a lot of them are capable of being directly addressed without undue complication, for one thing. Couples that are having sex and aren't married, can get married, assuming there's no impediment to that. If they can't get married, there are things that can be followed up upon there, not all of which are easy to address, of course. The most complicated one is couples that have married outside the Church where there is an impediment to marriage, such as one party being previously married and incapable of obtaining an annulment, but that's really the most difficult one. Probably the last example is the only one in which people might routinely present themselves for a blessing, feeling themselves outside of things but wanting in. I'm sure that does occur. But that this has occured for a long time is well known.
And indeed, it is once again particularly European, oddly enough. Divorce and remarriage are not unknown in the US, and there's been a lot of focus in the US Church for decades, I'd argue too much attention in fact, as it's given the illusion that it's a problem, but more or less just that. It's more than that. But ecumenical practices in Europe have so blurred the lines that it's hard for couples in some regions, particularly in Northern Europe where the Lutheran and Catholic Churches are both common, to appreciate that these things matter.
At any rate, blessings of individuals occurring were already occurring, and therefore the development of this topic probably wasn't necessary. The presumption that this was focused on homosexuality and licensing it, to a degree, was inevitable and unnecessary, even if the latter isn't the aim.
Indeed, on that, at least one Bishop in the US issued a letter that his parishioners would inevitably see it that way, so the blessing should not occur. I guess the Vatican's statement in January overrides this.
Well, what about here?
I don't think it'll happen much. I hope that people in these situations apply the entire topic correctly, and all are to be sympathized with, including the Priests that find themselves in the midst of it.
And there's one more thing.
The Bishop seems to indicate that those concerned about, and I'm saying concerned about not opposed, to, Fiducia Supplicans are acting with a sort of contempt, and based upon the reading of it, sort of a contempt either for this focus in the Latin Rite of the Church, or upon people who identify as homosexuals or transgendered. Some people are, but some people are acting out of concern for the normalization of something that may very well reflect a cultural trend, rather than an organic existential reality.
And this gets back to this. It's the Western World that's fascinated with homosexuality and which thinks transgenderism is a thing. Homosexuality is not regarded in the same fashion as the West views it in most of the world, and indeed, as we've posted here before, in large sections of Asia it's regarded as a Western cultural thing, and there are a couple of aboriginal groups in African in which it's wholly unknown. We don't know the origin of either category, but the categories themselves are fairly new. Homosexuality, as we know to conceive of it, came about as a Western cultural category only within the last 150 years, and transgenderism only much more recently. Given that most of the world's population isn't European, there's reason to doubt that recognizing these categories as bonafide ingrained traits is anything more than a passing trend, much like the European dominance of global culture itself.
And even in Europe, as opposed to the United States (which has a European culture) real doubt is now being cast on transgenderism. The US is very behind the curve on this.
Given this, this focus may do something that isn't helpful, which is to focus. While it is inaccurate, there's already a concept in much of non-Catholic American culture that the ranks of the Catholic religious are filled with homosexuals and even some Catholics remain convinced that there are pools of underground homosexuals in the same ranks, something that might actually have been somewhat true, but not nearly to the extent imagined, in the 70s and 80s. Convincing orthodox Christians that the Catholic Church, which is generally a bastion of orthodoxy, isn't being influenced in this direction isn't helped by this focus.
And it will retard progress towards a reunion with the Orthodox, something that needs to happen but which we never quite get to. Already one Eastern European Orthodox Bishop who was getting very friendly with the Catholic Church as stated that Fiducia Supplicans will prevent a reunion.
Again, Bishop Biegler has not stated anything that isn't squarely orthodox in his letter. But his focus on Bishop Hart demonstrated a looking back on an era which for most Wyoming Catholics didn't have much relevance to their current lives. Fiducia Supplicans, while not saying anything revolutionary about doctrine either, can't help but focus on a topic which, in a greater sense, may not be relevant to much of the Universal Church, and which may actually reflect a passing concern of a passing culture to a degree.
Related threads:
.jpg)
_-_Billboard_ad_1971.jpg)
